Interesting Jack / Tiger stat

[lowheel]

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

 

Jack wins.

So Rich Beem/Ben Curtis/Todd Hamilton win over Westwood/Kenny Perry/Stricker?

 

I think he means more than 1...

[Hankshank]

A pity you cannot see all the results for Jack, only the ones from 1980 and onward at pgatour.com. You get a good feeling for a players performance during a year if you see all the results.

[lowheel]

I'm curious - who were the Ben Curtis's, Shaun Micheel's and Todd Hamilton's of Jack's era?

 

Granted, that just three guys but ...

 

Tommy Aaron, George Archer, Divicenzo, Coody, Moody, Golby, Brewer, Dave Marr, Don January, Lou Graham, Jerry Pate, etc...

[lowheel]

How many in this debate think the best players of all time played almost a century ago? Anyone? 19 of the top 37 all time winners on the PGA Tour were born over a century ago. Is it just possible that it was because the fields were very shallow and the same few guys won a lot? Add in the effects of attrition due to the world wars and the difficulty of travel world wide and the wins get distributed to a relative few. Only 4 were born in the last 60 years. Hmm maybe because there is a lot more competition for those wins? The best in the world fighting it out week after week.

 

Jack didn't play over a century ago though, and there's a 20 year gap between the late 70s and the late 90s, which is the same gap between the late 90s and today now. When Nicklaus won 3 majors in 4 years from 1978 to 1980, was there that big of a difference in the fields between then and say 1997? It might have been easier when Nicklaus first came on Tour but he didn't win any less regularly in the late 70s as the early 60s. Same way Tiger won 4 in 1997 and 5 in 2013. In my opinion, a winner is a winner and despite fields being better than they've ever been on the PGA Tour, stick prime Nicklaus or Woods in today and they're playing like DJ is now all year.

I agree with your assessment that Jack or Tiger would still fare well today. However Jack's amazingly high number of top 3's for instance in majors is at least partly because of the "strength" of the fields. You're right. Jack did not play a century ago. But he did start 65 years ago! And since then the fields have become stronger and stronger and stronger.... I would say there is a pretty large difference in the Open fields-yeah. And by the way Jack was late in his career by 1980. Tiger was just starting his in 1997. See below for the 1962 Open.So lets compare early fields.

 

http://www.theopen.c...997/Royal-Troon

 

http://www.theopen.c...962/Royal-Troon

 

I respectfully call BS on this. Like Tiger he was just that good, period. Do I need to remind you in the 1998 masters 57 year old geezer Jack with a bad hip tripled up defending champ and 22 year old phenom Tiger freakin Woods on his way to a 6th place finish!!! 4 shots behind Omeara! He was getting those titles and top 3s/top 10s in any era because he had the greatest golf mind ever, most efficient/consistent/predicatable game ever. His timing/ hands/putting touch easily greatest ever. Didnt need to peak to contend. Alot like Woods he was blood and guts, never quit, never out of it but the difference was jack could still score when his game wasnt all there, Tiger couldnt. Thats why he has never come from behind in a major. Look at what Watson had to do in 77 as an example to beat Jack. Jack made a 45 foot bomb on 18 to force Watson to make his 3 footer to win. Jack didnt have his best stuff that sunday but pushed Watson to the brink. Both are/were superhuman players that would have identical results regardless of era

[playa]

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

 

Jack wins.

So Rich Beem/Ben Curtis/Todd Hamilton win over Westwood/Kenny Perry/Stricker?

 

I think he means more than 1...

Not the way I read it. But even in that case does that mean Harrington beats Norman, DL3, Freddy, Duval etc?

 

Rating a career solely on how many times they have won a tournament that is held 4 times a year is not logical. An argument can easily be raised that Jack had a better career than tiger, but the 18 majors beats 14 chestnut thrown around adnauseum by Jack fanboys isn't definitive imo.

[zoots]

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

 

Jack wins.

So Rich Beem/Ben Curtis/Todd Hamilton win over Westwood/Kenny Perry/Stricker?

 

I think he means more than 1...

Not the way I read it. But even in that case does that mean Harrington beats Norman, DL3, Freddy, Duval etc?

 

Rating a career solely on how many times they have won a tournament that is held 4 times a year is not logical. An argument can easily be raised that Jack had a better career than tiger, but the 18 majors beats 14 chestnut thrown around adnauseum by Jack fanboys isn't definitive imo.

 

Comparing who is better among Harrington/Norman/DL3 does not apply imo. You can do this in any sport among above average players with similar stats. When we compare the very best at anything the margins in defining this become much tighter.

 

Tiger fanboys throwing out strength of field isn't definitive either. All that can be proven is the numbers. Numbers are what people remember. As far as the 18 majors beating 14, it does.

 

Tiger has 6 more pga victories than Jack. Jack has four more majors. Any professional would weight 4 majors over 6 pga wins. If Tiger had 20 more wins that Jack, then It may be debatable.

 

I am not a fanboy of either. Numbers and what the best players in the world regard as most important(majors) is what defines it.

[Shilgy]

Hey Zoots, Tiger has 8 more individual titles than Jack. I'm assuming we are only counting titles they got without help.

 

Lowheel, Jack is the greatest major champion of all time. No question. I will question the huge number of top three's though as being partially due to the field strength. Even Jack has said he had so many fewer guys to beat any given week.

[bscinstnct]

Hey Zoots, Tiger has 8 more individual titles than Jack. I'm assuming we are only counting titles they got without help.

 

Lowheel, Jack is the greatest major champion of all time. No question. I will question the huge number of top three's though as being partially due to the field strength. Even Jack has said he had so many fewer guys to beat any given week.

 

And we both know what

 

Trevino and Watson think ; )

[Shilgy]

Hey Zoots, Tiger has 8 more individual titles than Jack. I'm assuming we are only counting titles they got without help.

 

Lowheel, Jack is the greatest major champion of all time. No question. I will question the huge number of top three's though as being partially due to the field strength. Even Jack has said he had so many fewer guys to beat any given week.

 

And we both know what

 

Trevino and Watson think ; )

Have you mentioned it before? ?

[tatertot]

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

 

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

 

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

 

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

 

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

For me it is not the math you are applying. Sure, if majors are ALL that matters why have the debate? 18>14. End of story. Right? Personally I believe the total victories play a part as well. As well as the eye test watching both men play.

Quick-who is the best pitcher in baseball? Most wins? Most K's? Best hitter? Home runs or batting average? No one seems to have an issue calling Jordan the best basketball player but he does not have the most titles nor did he score the most points.

Funny how it's just the Tiger/Jack that gets this stat applied. No one argues that Faldo is above Nelson on the list. Heck, many will even flip it one they get the 18>14 and try to say that Hogan and Nelson>Tiger.

 

I think Tiger himself set up Major wins as the end-all-be-all for GOAT discussion ender.

 

From the very beginning, it was all about having Jack's 18 Majors pinned up on his wall. That was his goal. As soon as Tiger won #19, mission accomplished.

 

I think golf is more comparable to tennis than baseball, basketball or any team sport .... Everyone THOUGHT Serena might be the best women's player of all time. But once she passed Graf's singles Major total, the discussion was over and there was no reason for debate. Unfortunately, Tiger hasn't been able to do that ... yet.

[lowheel]

Hey Zoots, Tiger has 8 more individual titles than Jack. I'm assuming we are only counting titles they got without help.

 

Lowheel, Jack is the greatest major champion of all time. No question. I will question the huge number of top three's though as being partially due to the field strength. Even Jack has said he had so many fewer guys to beat any given week.

 

You're misquoting what he said. He said there were fewer guys he "believed" he needed to beat any given week. thats how strong his self belief was as im sure Tiger ever only worried about 5 or 6 guys week to week.

 

Also i know you're a tiger over jack guy and thats cool but to make up the gap in majors and top 3/5/10 finishes in majors you choose to diminish jacks accomplishments by picking on strength of fields. i choose to believe relative to peers and they both stand alone with Jack clearly in the lead.

Also when you get semantic with comments like events he didnt need help to win it gets childish and you're far too bright for that.

[lowheel]

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

 

Jack wins.

So Rich Beem/Ben Curtis/Todd Hamilton win over Westwood/Kenny Perry/Stricker?

 

I think he means more than 1...

Not the way I read it. But even in that case does that mean Harrington beats Norman, DL3, Freddy, Duval etc?

 

Rating a career solely on how many times they have won a tournament that is held 4 times a year is not logical. An argument can easily be raised that Jack had a better career than tiger, but the 18 majors beats 14 chestnut thrown around adnauseum by Jack fanboys isn't definitive imo.

 

I read it as it separates good careers into great ones. Out of the names you put out there its Norman and its not even close. If he didnt have those 2 opens it changes regardless of worldwide wins and #1 ranking. sound fair?

[Shilgy]

 

You're misquoting what he said. He said there were fewer guys he "believed" he needed to beat any given week. thats how strong his self belief was as im sure Tiger ever only worried about 5 or 6 guys week to week.

 

Also i know you're a tiger over jack guy and thats cool but to make up the gap in majors and top 3/5/10 finishes in majors you choose to diminish jacks accomplishments by picking on strength of fields. i choose to believe relative to peers and they both stand alone with Jack clearly in the lead.

Also when you get semantic with comments like events he didnt need help to win it gets childish and you're far too bright for that.

Thanks for that last comment, I guess. :) IMO this should be two debates. I am not attempting to elevate Tiger with the field strength question. First he does not need my feeble assistance. Second it's a side note. The records are what they are and we can each interpret them as we see them. For instance...I think Byron Nelson was a great player. But I certainly think his record of 18 wins in a season, and especially the 11 in a row, was greatly assisted by ww2 and the resulting lack of field strength that year. If you think Nelson could have done that in Jack's era or Tigers than you may as well stop reading.

How far back is it ok to look? I have mentioned before that 19 of the top 37 on the all time to wins list were born over a century ago. I just looked at the list again. 12 of the 37 are credited with wins before the PGA tour was even formed in 1929. Are those wins the "equal" as more recent wins? Did they play a quality field? If not where is the line drawn?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying each of Jack's wins is worth 75% of a Tiger or current win or any such thing. I do think his record would be "different" than it is though. I would find it more likely that he would still win 18 majors if he started today than the idea he would have 37 top twos.

I will repeat what I've said in the past. Jack is goat, but Tiger played the best golf I have ever seen. And I saw them both in their prime.

[lowheel]

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

 

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

 

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

 

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

 

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

For me it is not the math you are applying. Sure, if majors are ALL that matters why have the debate? 18>14. End of story. Right? Personally I believe the total victories play a part as well. As well as the eye test watching both men play.

Quick-who is the best pitcher in baseball? Most wins? Most K's? Best hitter? Home runs or batting average? No one seems to have an issue calling Jordan the best basketball player but he does not have the most titles nor did he score the most points.

Funny how it's just the Tiger/Jack that gets this stat applied. No one argues that Faldo is above Nelson on the list. Heck, many will even flip it one they get the 18>14 and try to say that Hogan and Nelson>Tiger.

 

I think Tiger himself set up Major wins as the end-all-be-all for GOAT discussion ender.

 

From the very beginning, it was all about having Jack's 18 Majors pinned up on his wall. That was his goal. As soon as Tiger won #19, mission accomplished.

 

I think golf is more comparable to tennis than baseball, basketball or any team sport .... Everyone THOUGHT Serena might be the best women's player of all time. But once she passed Graf's singles Major total, the discussion was over and there was no reason for debate. Unfortunately, Tiger hasn't been able to do that ... yet.

 

Good point on the the female tennis side however the debate isnt over per say. Personally i believe if Steffi played Serena in their primes in best of 10 Steffi curb stomps her in 8 of those matches but thats a story for another day. 22 majors in 47 tries. true calendar grand slam 40 more titles then Serena.8.5 years at #1. For me Graf all day and not close.

[cdnglf]

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

 

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

 

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

 

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

 

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

For me it is not the math you are applying. Sure, if majors are ALL that matters why have the debate? 18>14. End of story. Right? Personally I believe the total victories play a part as well. As well as the eye test watching both men play.

Quick-who is the best pitcher in baseball? Most wins? Most K's? Best hitter? Home runs or batting average? No one seems to have an issue calling Jordan the best basketball player but he does not have the most titles nor did he score the most points.

Funny how it's just the Tiger/Jack that gets this stat applied. No one argues that Faldo is above Nelson on the list. Heck, many will even flip it one they get the 18>14 and try to say that Hogan and Nelson>Tiger.

 

I think Tiger himself set up Major wins as the end-all-be-all for GOAT discussion ender.

 

From the very beginning, it was all about having Jack's 18 Majors pinned up on his wall. That was his goal. As soon as Tiger won #19, mission accomplished.

 

I think golf is more comparable to tennis than baseball, basketball or any team sport .... Everyone THOUGHT Serena might be the best women's player of all time. But once she passed Graf's singles Major total, the discussion was over and there was no reason for debate. Unfortunately, Tiger hasn't been able to do that ... yet.

 

Good point on the the female tennis side however the debate isnt over per say. Personally i believe if Steffi played Serena in their primes in best of 10 Steffi curb stomps her in 8 of those matches but thats a story for another day. 22 majors in 47 tries. true calendar grand slam 40 more titles then Serena.8.5 years at #1. For me Graf all day and not close.

 

If that crazy dude doesn't stab Monica, Steffi isn't even in the conversation.

[playa]

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

 

Jack wins.

So Rich Beem/Ben Curtis/Todd Hamilton win over Westwood/Kenny Perry/Stricker?

 

I think he means more than 1...

Not the way I read it. But even in that case does that mean Harrington beats Norman, DL3, Freddy, Duval etc?

 

Rating a career solely on how many times they have won a tournament that is held 4 times a year is not logical. An argument can easily be raised that Jack had a better career than tiger, but the 18 majors beats 14 chestnut thrown around adnauseum by Jack fanboys isn't definitive imo.

 

Comparing who is better among Harrington/Norman/DL3 does not apply imo. You can do this in any sport among above average players with similar stats. When we compare the very best at anything the margins in defining this become much tighter.

 

Tiger fanboys throwing out strength of field isn't definitive either. All that can be proven is the numbers. Numbers are what people remember. As far as the 18 majors beating 14, it does.

 

Tiger has 6 more pga victories than Jack. Jack has four more majors. Any professional would weight 4 majors over 6 pga wins. If Tiger had 20 more wins that Jack, then It may be debatable.

 

I am not a fanboy of either. Numbers and what the best players in the world regard as most important(majors) is what defines it.

Fair enough, you have now presented a strong argument based on overall careers, not the '18 beats 14' original comment.

[lowheel]

You're misquoting what he said. He said there were fewer guys he "believed" he needed to beat any given week. thats how strong his self belief was as im sure Tiger ever only worried about 5 or 6 guys week to week.

 

Also i know you're a tiger over jack guy and thats cool but to make up the gap in majors and top 3/5/10 finishes in majors you choose to diminish jacks accomplishments by picking on strength of fields. i choose to believe relative to peers and they both stand alone with Jack clearly in the lead.

Also when you get semantic with comments like events he didnt need help to win it gets childish and you're far too bright for that.

Thanks for that last comment, I guess. :) IMO this should be two debates. I am not attempting to elevate Tiger with the field strength question. First he does not need my feeble assistance. Second it's a side note. The records are what they are and we can each interpret them as we see them. For instance...I think Byron Nelson was a great player. But I certainly think his record of 18 wins in a season, and especially the 11 in a row, was greatly assisted by ww2 and the resulting lack of field strength that year. If you think Nelson could have done that in Jack's era or Tigers than you may as well stop reading.

How far back is it ok to look? I have mentioned before that 19 of the top 37 on the all time to wins list were born over a century ago. I just looked at the list again. 12 of the 37 are credited with wins before the PGA tour was even formed in 1929. Are those wins the "equal" as more recent wins? Did they play a quality field? If not where is the line drawn?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying each of Jack's wins is worth 75% of a Tiger or current win or any such thing. I do think his record would be "different" than it is though. I would find it more likely that he would still win 18 majors if he started today than the idea he would have 37 top twos.

I will repeat what I've said in the past. Jack is goat, but Tiger played the best golf I have ever seen. And I saw them both in their prime.

 

Very well explained, no snark. The thing i see as the deciding factor is that when you have the longevity of Jack it shows how truly great he is as his peers changed yet his results stayed the same. Thats my proof that his record would be identical give or take a few top 5s in majors.

 

As for Byron Nelsons record season or tournaments of yester year when you ask is a win in 1945 equal to a win in 2005 the answer is yes. regardless of geographical limitations, world wars, smaller purses etc.. because its relative to your best peers. You cant blame players today for not playing the best chinese/korean/ japanese/australasian players if they cant travel or have no status etc.. as much as you cant blame players in the late 40s early 50s who didnt take 10 day boat rides to play in the open. They played and beat who was there just like todays players do. You play the cards dealt to you. Could nelson win 18 in a season during Nicklauses era? no because Jack would have stolen some.Hogan played 1 british open ever and won it handily. He missed 27 majors in his prime. 4 due to injury 16 due to WW2 and couldnt play the PGA because of his bum leg after 1949. he won 2 PGAs at that point in the last 3 years. He easily gets to 15-16 majors no question if air travel is more current but thats how it goes. How about Greg Norman? he lost 4 majors in playoffs numerous others on flukes etc... He goes from being the next watson to well norman I know youre in camp tiger and thats cool but golf history is there to be reapected regardless of eras. Wins are wins whether theyre team events or whether theyre 50 years apart or not

[playa]

Every tour player I have ever heard or read regarding what they value as the highest achievement a player can have in the game, are major championships.

 

Jack wins.

So Rich Beem/Ben Curtis/Todd Hamilton win over Westwood/Kenny Perry/Stricker?

 

I think he means more than 1...

Not the way I read it. But even in that case does that mean Harrington beats Norman, DL3, Freddy, Duval etc?

 

Rating a career solely on how many times they have won a tournament that is held 4 times a year is not logical. An argument can easily be raised that Jack had a better career than tiger, but the 18 majors beats 14 chestnut thrown around adnauseum by Jack fanboys isn't definitive imo.

 

I read it as it separates good careers into great ones. Out of the names you put out there its Norman and its not even close. If he didnt have those 2 opens it changes regardless of worldwide wins and #1 ranking. sound fair?

Absolutely agree. Norman is probably the best example of the flawed logic of rating only on major victories. He is the third best player of the last 30 years imo, behind Tiger and Seve. Before I get howled down I agree Phil has a much better record, but Norman at his best was consistently dominant, as evidenced by his time as wno. This is my personal opinion only and totally agree that on paper Phil sits behind only tiger in achievement since 1980.

[Shilgy]

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

 

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

 

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

 

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

 

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

For me it is not the math you are applying. Sure, if majors are ALL that matters why have the debate? 18>14. End of story. Right? Personally I believe the total victories play a part as well. As well as the eye test watching both men play.

Quick-who is the best pitcher in baseball? Most wins? Most K's? Best hitter? Home runs or batting average? No one seems to have an issue calling Jordan the best basketball player but he does not have the most titles nor did he score the most points.

Funny how it's just the Tiger/Jack that gets this stat applied. No one argues that Faldo is above Nelson on the list. Heck, many will even flip it one they get the 18>14 and try to say that Hogan and Nelson>Tiger.

 

I think Tiger himself set up Major wins as the end-all-be-all for GOAT discussion ender.

 

From the very beginning, it was all about having Jack's 18 Majors pinned up on his wall. That was his goal. As soon as Tiger won #19, mission accomplished.

 

I think golf is more comparable to tennis than baseball, basketball or any team sport .... Everyone THOUGHT Serena might be the best women's player of all time. But once she passed Graf's singles Major total, the discussion was over and there was no reason for debate. Unfortunately, Tiger hasn't been able to do that ... yet.

 

Good point on the the female tennis side however the debate isnt over per say. Personally i believe if Steffi played Serena in their primes in best of 10 Steffi curb stomps her in 8 of those matches but thats a story for another day. 22 majors in 47 tries. true calendar grand slam 40 more titles then Serena.8.5 years at #1. For me Graf all day and not close.

But but 23>22. Steffi=Tiger and Serena=Jack. Why, scratch that, HOW can it be different in tennis?

PS it's a pleasure having a good debate/discussion with you.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

 

Absolutely agree. Norman is probably the best example of the flawed logic of rating only on major victories. He is the third best player of the last 30 years imo, behind Tiger and Seve. Before I get howled down I agree Phil has a much better record, but Norman at his best was consistently dominant, as evidenced by his time as wno. This is my personal opinion only and totally agree that on paper Phil sits behind only tiger in achievement since 1980.

 

To me, if Norman would have won zero majors over the course of his career, I still would rate him in the top ten most talented golfers of all time. One needs only to look at his game to agree. Heck, one only needs to play high level junior or amateur golf to find an example of a guy who had the most talent, and never really saw his potential at the pro level. Maybe it's been said before in this mess, but Tiger is the by far the most talented golfer of all time. Jack is top 5.

 

Jack is the best major champion of all time, but he is definitely not the most talented golfer of all time. My opinion.

[lowheel]

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

 

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

 

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

 

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

 

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

For me it is not the math you are applying. Sure, if majors are ALL that matters why have the debate? 18>14. End of story. Right? Personally I believe the total victories play a part as well. As well as the eye test watching both men play.

Quick-who is the best pitcher in baseball? Most wins? Most K's? Best hitter? Home runs or batting average? No one seems to have an issue calling Jordan the best basketball player but he does not have the most titles nor did he score the most points.

Funny how it's just the Tiger/Jack that gets this stat applied. No one argues that Faldo is above Nelson on the list. Heck, many will even flip it one they get the 18>14 and try to say that Hogan and Nelson>Tiger.

 

I think Tiger himself set up Major wins as the end-all-be-all for GOAT discussion ender.

 

From the very beginning, it was all about having Jack's 18 Majors pinned up on his wall. That was his goal. As soon as Tiger won #19, mission accomplished.

 

I think golf is more comparable to tennis than baseball, basketball or any team sport .... Everyone THOUGHT Serena might be the best women's player of all time. But once she passed Graf's singles Major total, the discussion was over and there was no reason for debate. Unfortunately, Tiger hasn't been able to do that ... yet.

 

Good point on the the female tennis side however the debate isnt over per say. Personally i believe if Steffi played Serena in their primes in best of 10 Steffi curb stomps her in 8 of those matches but thats a story for another day. 22 majors in 47 tries. true calendar grand slam 40 more titles then Serena.8.5 years at #1. For me Graf all day and not close.

 

If that crazy dude doesn't stab Monica, Steffi isn't even in the conversation.

NOOOOOOOOO dont be that guy!!!

[zoots]

Hey Zoots, Tiger has 8 more individual titles than Jack. I'm assuming we are only counting titles they got without help.

 

Lowheel, Jack is the greatest major champion of all time. No question. I will question the huge number of top three's though as being partially due to the field strength. Even Jack has said he had so many fewer guys to beat any given week.

 

Cool. I wonder if Tiger would trade his 8 individual titles for 4 more majors.

 

I personally think Tiger would have beaten Jack easily if he wouldn't have changed his swing every 5 minutes.

[lowheel]

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

 

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

 

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

 

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

 

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

For me it is not the math you are applying. Sure, if majors are ALL that matters why have the debate? 18>14. End of story. Right? Personally I believe the total victories play a part as well. As well as the eye test watching both men play.

Quick-who is the best pitcher in baseball? Most wins? Most K's? Best hitter? Home runs or batting average? No one seems to have an issue calling Jordan the best basketball player but he does not have the most titles nor did he score the most points.

Funny how it's just the Tiger/Jack that gets this stat applied. No one argues that Faldo is above Nelson on the list. Heck, many will even flip it one they get the 18>14 and try to say that Hogan and Nelson>Tiger.

 

I think Tiger himself set up Major wins as the end-all-be-all for GOAT discussion ender.

 

From the very beginning, it was all about having Jack's 18 Majors pinned up on his wall. That was his goal. As soon as Tiger won #19, mission accomplished.

 

I think golf is more comparable to tennis than baseball, basketball or any team sport .... Everyone THOUGHT Serena might be the best women's player of all time. But once she passed Graf's singles Major total, the discussion was over and there was no reason for debate. Unfortunately, Tiger hasn't been able to do that ... yet.

 

Good point on the the female tennis side however the debate isnt over per say. Personally i believe if Steffi played Serena in their primes in best of 10 Steffi curb stomps her in 8 of those matches but thats a story for another day. 22 majors in 47 tries. true calendar grand slam 40 more titles then Serena.8.5 years at #1. For me Graf all day and not close.

But but 23>22. Steffi=Tiger and Serena=Jack. Why, scratch that, HOW can it be different in tennis?

PS it's a pleasure having a good debate/discussion with you.

 

I get what youre saying and love the humor, honestly. I dont rate Jack above Tiger simply because of 18>14 but because of his longevity and consistent major finishes. look at his major record in the 1970s the full decade and tell me when Tiger did that.

 

As for tennis look at Nadal versus Federer. Longevity and dominance wins out regadless of head to head.

[lowheel]

Hey Zoots, Tiger has 8 more individual titles than Jack. I'm assuming we are only counting titles they got without help.

 

Lowheel, Jack is the greatest major champion of all time. No question. I will question the huge number of top three's though as being partially due to the field strength. Even Jack has said he had so many fewer guys to beat any given week.

 

Cool. I wonder if Tiger would trade his 8 individual titles for 4 more majors.

 

I personally think Tiger would have beaten Jack easily if he wouldn't have changed his swing every 5 minutes.

 

My personal opinion on Tiger changing his swing often is he doesnt like linear golf. the repetitive grind wears on him and he constantly needs new challenges hence the swing changes. Hence the left side of the brain golfers and the right side of the brain golfers. Jack stuck with the swing that got him to the dance through thick and thin. So did many other greats that had great longevity. Tiger is more of an artist/brute who needs a new way to get to work regardless if the road less traveled is right there in front of him. Did he change some aspects of his swing to avoid injury? its possible but more likely he tired of Butch and didnt like him getting credit for his magical run. Same with Haney and then he chose a stinker in Foley which for me was the final nail in his coffin well before injury. When his tall athletic posture became that hunched over atrocity well for me it was over.

[OrangeGravy]

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

 

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

 

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

 

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

 

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

 

You always get an outlier every generation or so like TW/Jack who, even thought competition has strengthened, have that extra souped up gene that puts them a head above the rest. Not just golf, but other sports. Michael Phelps, for example.

 

TW had the most perfect game we have ever seen thus far. But the "next" Tiger will be even better and beat TWs number and maybe even Jacks.

 

Maybe like a DJ but faster/more determined to develop and even more power/short game skills.

 

"It's good to be the King"

[lenman73]

For me personally it comes down to the majors. All the pros that have a decent expectation of winning them, that's what they focus on. I'm not talking a journeyman who never sniffed being in contention in a major even though they ended up have a great career by any other standard. But the greats of the games, in the end people will remember how many majors they one and not how many John Deere classics.

 

I am on board with the notion that Jack is GOAT and Tiger played the greatest golf ever. While I am not particularly a fan of either, I truly do miss watching Tiger go on those epic runs. Jack was a little before my time.

[Shilgy]

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

 

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

 

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

 

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

 

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

For me it is not the math you are applying. Sure, if majors are ALL that matters why have the debate? 18>14. End of story. Right? Personally I believe the total victories play a part as well. As well as the eye test watching both men play.

Quick-who is the best pitcher in baseball? Most wins? Most K's? Best hitter? Home runs or batting average? No one seems to have an issue calling Jordan the best basketball player but he does not have the most titles nor did he score the most points.

Funny how it's just the Tiger/Jack that gets this stat applied. No one argues that Faldo is above Nelson on the list. Heck, many will even flip it one they get the 18>14 and try to say that Hogan and Nelson>Tiger.

 

I think Tiger himself set up Major wins as the end-all-be-all for GOAT discussion ender.

 

From the very beginning, it was all about having Jack's 18 Majors pinned up on his wall. That was his goal. As soon as Tiger won #19, mission accomplished.

 

I think golf is more comparable to tennis than baseball, basketball or any team sport .... Everyone THOUGHT Serena might be the best women's player of all time. But once she passed Graf's singles Major total, the discussion was over and there was no reason for debate. Unfortunately, Tiger hasn't been able to do that ... yet.

As I recall it was not the majors number that was on the wall. Well it was but was one of many. I could swear I recall he had ALL of Jack's accomplishments-by age- and wanted to better them. US Amateur, first tour win, first major, 5 majors, 10 majors etc.

[llewol007]

Ya, Tigers Woods Career isnt over, his attempt at Jack's record is. Jack is the GOAT. We all know that.

[mwkbmw]

Tiger > Jack. Not even close. Just like Bonds > Babe Ruth.

 

The increased competition matters.

 

How many World Series games did Bonds pitch in? And win?

 

And, how many home runs did Bonds "call" before hitting them for a sick child in the hospital?

 

Luckily, for Ruth, alcohol and tobacco weren't banned substances in MLB.

[tatertot]

So the crux of the 18 vs. 14 debate is Tiger faced more competition than Jack.

 

If that is true (I don't believe it to be so ... but let's assume it is for debate), what is the ratio of value for Tiger's majors vs. Jack's.

 

Do 1 of Jack's = 1.5 of Tigers? If so, the real score is 21-18 in favor of Tiger.

 

And if so, competition must be stiffer now than it was in 1997, so what is a major worth today compared to one of Tigers? Would Rory only need to win 11 majors to eclipse Tiger?

 

And when is the tipping point? At some point, China will open up, and all those Chinese athletes will start pouring into the PGA ... think how much competition there will be then. Two generations from now, the newest superstar may only need to win 7 majors to eclipse Tiger.

For me it is not the math you are applying. Sure, if majors are ALL that matters why have the debate? 18>14. End of story. Right? Personally I believe the total victories play a part as well. As well as the eye test watching both men play.

Quick-who is the best pitcher in baseball? Most wins? Most K's? Best hitter? Home runs or batting average? No one seems to have an issue calling Jordan the best basketball player but he does not have the most titles nor did he score the most points.

Funny how it's just the Tiger/Jack that gets this stat applied. No one argues that Faldo is above Nelson on the list. Heck, many will even flip it one they get the 18>14 and try to say that Hogan and Nelson>Tiger.

 

I think Tiger himself set up Major wins as the end-all-be-all for GOAT discussion ender.

 

From the very beginning, it was all about having Jack's 18 Majors pinned up on his wall. That was his goal. As soon as Tiger won #19, mission accomplished.

 

I think golf is more comparable to tennis than baseball, basketball or any team sport .... Everyone THOUGHT Serena might be the best women's player of all time. But once she passed Graf's singles Major total, the discussion was over and there was no reason for debate. Unfortunately, Tiger hasn't been able to do that ... yet.

As I recall it was not the majors number that was on the wall. Well it was but was one of many. I could swear I recall he had ALL of Jack's accomplishments-by age- and wanted to better them. US Amateur, first tour win, first major, 5 majors, 10 majors etc.

 

According to this article, we are both wrong ... the majors were never there at all:

 

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/12/tiger-woods-jack-nicklaus-majors-had-on-wall-never-did-goals-accomplishments-by-age

 

Wonder where the story came from?